Your chief argument was that having two ways to do things is intrinsically
perl-ish and un-PHP-like.
My chief argument is that the single existing way isn't user-friendly.
Your secondary argument was that nested breaks are rarely used in PHP
anyway.
I think your secondary argument is directly related to my chief argument.
Is all, I'll quit now. If nobody on the dev team cares about it any more
(despite the fact that all of them liked the idea at the time save Ilia and
Jani) then it's going nowhere anyway.
- Steph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
Argh, re-read my first email. I gave my reasoning there...
At 03:11 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
Erm - I'd consider myself one of 'the devs' as far as that goes. Perhaps I
wasn't very clear.
There is a feature in PHP that could easily be made more user-friendly,
and we have before us a patch that could do that.
I'm failing to understand why it's problematic to use it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
Yeah but my point was that even people for who it isn't scary (the devs)
don't use it very much :) It's just something which isn't needed very
often. So we're wasting lots of bandwidth on something which not many
will use anyway :)
Andi
At 02:54 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
Agreed it's not used very much. That's because people like me think it's
scary :) and that's _exactly_ what I was trying to say.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
It's just something which to begin with isn't used that much.
Grep'ed phpweb/ for it and found 0 occurrences of break n; and I
believe the people developing it would be the ones who would know how
to use it.
Andi
At 02:33 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
I personally find working with numbers difficult, which is why I'm
wholly in support of this patch.
I doubt I'm the only PHP user with that issue, due to the 'ease of
use' that allows people with no history of computer science to write
useful scripts (for which, thank you all). But I wouldn't expect a
great deal of sympathy on that point from CS graduates.
nb I think implementing goto/equivalent itself is a fairly bad idea -
I appear to be in the minority on that issue. But I don't see any
problem with introducing labels, I just see it as a more user-friendly
way of allowing nested breaks.
Am I very wrong?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals"
<internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
I think that in 1997 when break/continue n where implemented it would
have been a nice idea, but at this stage except for being more
elegant than break/continue n it doesn't truly add anything
substantial to PHP (and as you already mentioned it's orthogonal to
the goto discussion). I think having more than 1 way of doing the
same thing, in this case, might just end up confusing people
developing with PHP (i.e. the Perl way :)
Just for the record I am coming at this from an open mind. Dmitry did
spend time on this patch, etc...
I'd recommend to bed it once and for all.
At 09:16 AM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
Guys and guyess,
Sara and Dmitry's patch to introduce labelled breaks was discussed
on internals@ ever-so-briefly at the beginning of December, but
there was never any decision made over it.
Given that practically everyone who survived the preceding GOTO
discussion seemed to think it was a good idea at the time, could you
please re-visit it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed to talking
about GOTO, which is unrelated) and either OK it or put it to bed
for once and for all?
Relevant summary is at
http://www.zend.com/zend/week/week265.php#Heading3
Relevant patch is at http://www.zend.com/zend/week/pat/index.php
And if it's worth anything, +1 from me.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
